ZX + multicard

Finally, I made more or less tolerable descriptions of
- the diagram for connecting the multicard to the Spectrum;
- the TR-DOS firmware, rewritten for the multicard (for the 8272 controller);
- the scheme for modifying the BETA disk for running LPrint-III via multicard.

The following letters contain the file ZX-MULTI.ZIP, containing all this documentation and
TR-DOS + LPrint-III firmware, rewritten for the multicard.

Best wishes! Michael KLUG

02 May 97 16:37, Michael Markowsky wrote to All:
[...]
MM> The following letters contain the file ZX-MULTI.ZIP, containing all this
MM> documentation and TR-DOS + LPrint-III firmware, rewritten for the
MM> multicard.
OK! Received, many thanks to you and those who helped you in the development of all this (Subj).
2ALL!!!
Shouldn’t we choose a new standard for the interface for the Speccy???
Well, what’s bad - there is an FDD, there is a HDD, there is a printer, there are COM ports.
Conclusion - with a competent approach to this issue you can work miracles!
A lot of issues with peripherals are solved, and there is no need to invent what has already been invented - all kinds of mice, hard drives, connecting modems (EXT!!!)
After all, the majority of coders write programs tailored for Pentagon,
EVERYONE KNOWS that these programs are not on Pentagon either they work crookedly, or they don’t work at all:(((However, for Inlight it was Pentagon that was chosen as the standard, and not the standard Spectrum (which the rest of the world knows =)!!!
> So maybe we can connect the multicard together??? IMHO this is the first
real step towards creating Super Spectrum.

Long life to you and your SPECCY!
Oleg

06 May 97 11:40, Fedin Pavel wrote to Michael Markowsky:
[...]
FP> Comrades, don’t you think that you have gone far? Don't you think
FP> that this particular machine will no longer be a Speccy, since
FP> will be completely incompatible. Besides, why invent something that already exists? This only makes the incompatibility worse. After all, there are already 3 schemes
FP> screw controller, 2 COM ports, 4 printer ports, God knows how many
FP> extended screens... Isn’t it easier to take as a standard what already exists?
FP> I propose Scorpio as a standard - the machine is produced,
FP> is supported, competently made... Just don’t yell that
FP> Scorpios are - Mazda and you have to push them. I'm not a Scorpio. I have
FP> Profi version 5. But Pro is not very competently made in the area of ​​additional ports, it is no longer produced and is not supported... If each of us comes up with a standard, we will never get anywhere...
Yes?! But what about those who have SPECTRUM not Scorpio, not Pentagon,
not Pro, but ordinary, normal, human.
IMHO the developers Propheus and Scorpei implemented it according to their own circuit design,
there was a slight incompatibility, but the user ate it, that’s okay...
And now for these glitches software is also being written.
What standard canlet's talk if no one remembers him anymore, and every self-respecting electronics engineer considers it his duty to give birth to another freak a la Speccy, as always with his new glitches. Or have people forgotten
the constant improvements to these left-field computers, where the naive user who bought
this miracle of technology is later offered to cut a bunch of tracks, hang a bunch of
scattered small logic. What kind of standards can we talk about now???
If YOU want a standard, take the Spectrum-128
firm version as a basis, and modify it, and hang up its peripherals.
But after these words, I can already guess that many are making dissatisfied
faces, they say one more has come out with its own standards. Yeah, the people have bought
these creations of the design genius, and naturally no one wants to admit that
“you were deceived.”
But my IMHO- The world knows SPECTRUM as it is, and only here in the former Soviet Union do they produce parodies of this computer, which for lack of alternatives
are being bought up by the people. And this is not anti-advertising for Scorpios,
Pentagons and other heresies, but a sober look at the real state of affairs.

Oleg

Wed 09:03 07 May 1997 Oleg Bashtenko writes to Fedin Pavel:

OB> If YOU want a standard, take the Spectrum-128 as a basis
OB> firm version

Where to get it?

Best wishes! Michael KLUG

MM> Where can I get it?

Exactly. Everything is dictated by economics. It was profitable to produce homemade products - they produced them. It would be more profitable to bring branded ones - everyone would have a branded one. And so, alas and ah. We have what we have and don’t have what we don’t have ;)
And there’s nowhere to get it. Yes, there is no need anymore, because now the branded one will be
exotic in our native country.

With best wishes, Vladimir.

07 May 97 22:34, Vladimir Larkov wrote to Oleg Bashtenko:
[...]
VL> Yes, there is no need, because now the branded one will be exotic
VL> in our home country.
Since it so happened that non-branded Speck is widespread,
at least programs (loaders (an eternal topic)) would be written without perversions.
And then a program arrives, and instead of launching it right away, I have to
remove ... (there should be a curse here) perverted loaders and protections:(
And after all, how many times has it been written on this topic, no, everyone wants to show that he is
cool in coding aki...
For example, they misrepresented ELITE 3 rather :) and I would have left it alone,
but without POKES the game resembles suicide;)
Now, if the author had provided for the "training mode" and released the "handbrake"
in the bootloader, then the protection could have live;)
Hence the conclusion - I will shoot all protected programs on the spot!
Conclusion 2 - I feel sorry for those users who cannot download all this nonsense,
and who must suffer because of the glitches associated with this nonsense.

Oleg

08 May 97 13:46, Maxim Polyanskiy wrote to Oleg Bashtenko:
[XORED]
MP> On Angstrem they produce such a plm - T34VG1. They tore up the PLM
MP> from the 128th computer a long time ago, it was called T34VG1-2. There was also a rumor that
MP> Angstrem had developed and produced a crystal that included
MP> AY-8910,1818vg93 and all the sampling logic. True, I didn’t see it live,
MP> but I saw the boards wired for it.
Honestly, I would assemble just such a computer for myself!
For my IMHO- Pentagon=Windows95 is the must....=)))
MP> The unrecognized standard has long been Pentagon-128. And with it both
MP> computers are 100% incompatible in terms of the number of clock cycles between interrupts.
MP> And the interruptions themselves are far from at the beginning of the screen. Dumb scheme
MP> for sampling and regenerating RAM - WAITs.
What infuriates me most is the general targeting of software for this very
Pentagon, again, my IMHO it is necessary to write programs with a more flexible structure,
and not strictly tied to a specific type of computer.
For example, I was never able to fully enjoy the creativity of the coders
who wrote programs on Inlight 96, because they slowed down terribly 8(((
And probably with programs from Inlight 97 it will be even worse...
On emulators you will not get the same buzz as on a real SPECCY!

Oleg AKA Hacker Olav

08 May 97 12:48, Roman Alexandrov wrote to Oleg Bashtenko:
[beaten by LDIR]
RA> The standard in our case is what is most common, and what
RA> is most common in St. Petersburg? That's right - Scorpio, so why
RA> demon will I change it for something else?
For God's sake! If you don't want to change, don't! Just write universal programs so that they work 100% not only on Scorpio.
And write smart loaders, not perverted ones, otherwise I’ll hack it and throw it away! ;)))
And I will load from VASIK.
Well, honestly, I’m tired of constantly hacking loaders, instead of
simply and calmly loading the program. Some are as passionate about their software as a lady is about (no, I’d better keep silent about why;)))
And yet they break it anyway, there are plenty of examples of this, Elite 3 at least.

Oleg AKA Hacker Olav

09 May 97 00:48 -- Oleg Bashtenko told Vladimir Larkov about the ZX + multicard:

OB> in the bootloader, then the protection could live;) From here the conclusion is that all protected programs
OB> will be shot on the spot!

Don’t worry, with this [traditional] approach there will be new programs soon there won't be any
at all - neither protected nor any :(

OB> Conclusion2 - I feel sorry for those users who cannot download all
OB> of this nonsense, and who must suffer because of the glitches associated with this
OB> nonsense.

What to do: glitches are the costs of protection against those who like to "get all of this
nonsense" :)

Warm greetings, Slava.